The Future of Curbside Recycling in Lake County, Ohio: A Report on Residents Views

Transcription

1 The Future of Curbside Recycling in Lake County, Ohio: A Report on Residents Views Countywide and Localized Survey Results and Conclusions Frank Lichtkoppler * Keith R. Jones Thomas W. Blaine Randall Zondag Ohio Sea Grant College Program Technical Bulletin Series Publication OHSU-TB Ohio Sea Grant College Program The Ohio State University 1314 Kinnear Road Columbus, Ohio Fax: This publication (OHSU-TB-061) is a result of work that was supported, in part, by the Ohio Sea Grant College Program (project A/EP-1) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA grant NA86RG0053), U.S. Department of Commerce. Support was also provided by the Ohio Board of Regents, The Ohio State University, Ohio State University Extension, and participating universities. The Ohio Sea Grant College Program is administered by The Ohio State University. The authors wish to acknowledge the following people for their significant contribution to this project: Daniel Troy, Mildred Teuscher and Robert Aufuldish, Lake County Commissioners; Lake County Solid Waste District Policy Committee members; Chris Hodges, County Utilities Department Director; Christina LeGros, Solid Waste District Coordinator; Thomas Archer, OSU Extension - Columbus; Cora French, Carmina Chiappone, Elizabeth Bollas, Linda Astry and Leslie Hathaway, Administrative and secretarial staff of the OSU Lake County Extension office; and the nearly 1500 residents of Lake County, who took the time to respond to our survey and whose input made this survey and report possible. *For more information about this report, contact the lead author at Lichtkoppler.1@osu.edu or

2 Part I. Introduction and Survey Procedure Lake County s residential curbside recycling program has been in place since 1993 and is the only countywide curbside recycling program in the State of Ohio. Through service contracted with a private waste hauler, some 89,700 households in 23 distinct communities are provided weekly pickup of comingled plastic and glass containers, aluminum and metal cans, newspaper, chipboard and corrugated cardboard. Presently, all recovered recyclable materials are trucked to a privately operated central collection, sorting and distribution center located on the east side of the City of Cleveland. The County s costs of operating the curbside program have risen sharply in recent years. In addition, fees the County is able to charge at its Painesville Township landfill to cover the cost of operating the curbside program have been reduced as a result of State legislation. At the time of the survey, the curbside collection contract was to expire in July Prior to that time, the County was exploring alternatives for operating and funding the continuation of the program. Whether the program continues is dependent on benefits, costs and the level of support of the public. To better understand public attitudes toward the Lake County curbside recycling program, the Lake County Solid Waste Policy Committee requested that Ohio State University Extension, Lake County conduct a survey of Lake County residents attitudes, preferences and level of commitment to the program. On January 8, 2001, OSU Extension, Lake County mailed surveys to 2000 Lake County households with a cover letter explaining the survey. Daniel Troy, Lake County Commissioner and Chair of the Lake County Solid Waste Policy Committee and Randall Zondag, Chair, OSU Extension, Lake County signed the letter. A fact sheet on the county curbside recycling program was included in the mailing. Survey recipients were randomly selected from a list of active registered voters. For the 2000 surveys mailed, the number of surveys sent within each community was in proportion to community population. Sixteen surveys were undeliverable. Several small incentives were offered for persons returning their surveys, consisting of randomly selected winners of an ornamental tree, theater tickets and Lake County Solid Waste District tee shirts. Follow up letters were sent to non-respondents on January 15 and again on January 29, The three mailings produced a total of 1458 completed, usable surveys. This represents a response rate of 73%, a relatively high rate for a mail survey to the general public. This high response indicates that curbside recycling is an important issue to many residents of Lake County. It also helps to minimize the chances that those who responded are atypical of all residents in the County. As a result, we believe that the results in this survey may be generalized to the voting population of Lake County, with a margin of error of plus or minus four (4) percent. 2

3 Data are presented for the entire county below. Appendix A includes data for the following four (4) area subgroups: 1) Painesville/East (Painesville City, Painesville Township, Fairport Harbor, Grand River, Leroy Township, Madison Village, Madison Township, Perry Village, Perry Township, North Perry Village); 2) Mentor/Central (Mentor, Concord Township, Kirtland, Mentor on-the-lake, Kirtland Hills Village); 3) Mentor City; and 4) West End (Eastlake, Wickliffe, Willoughby, Willoughby Hills, Waite Hill Village, Willowick, Lakeline, Timberlake). These subgroups were chosen to provide localized survey results on the future of curbside recycling as their sample size was large enough to allow for statistically valid conclusions to be made. Commentary: In comparing area subgroup results versus countywide results, there is no statistical difference in basic attitudes and preferences toward curbside recycling between the groups. In addition, when countywide results are compared with area subgroup results, there is no statistical difference between the groups in the amount of money residents are willing to pay to continue the program. Part II. General Opinions and Attitudes Toward Curbside Recycling in Lake County In the first portion of the survey, respondents were presented with a series of statements and asked to give their opinions on each using a four point scale, ranging from strongly favor to strongly oppose. The results are as follows. A. How should the local share of the residential recycling program be paid for in your community after June 30, 2002? 1. The resident should pay directly to the waste collection company for curbside recycling. (Resident pays.) Strongly Oppose 56% Oppose 25% Note: percentages may not sum Favor 13% to 100 due to rounding. Strongly Favor 6% 2. The community should pay for curbside recycling using revenues (taxes) from the community s general fund. (Community pays.) Strongly Oppose 18% Oppose 15% Favor 36% Strongly Favor 31% 3

4 3. A combination of both direct resident payment and community general fund payment should be used to fund the residential recycling program. (Both resident and community share payment.) Strongly Oppose 38% Oppose 20% Favor 27% Strongly Favor 16% B. Recycling Options: 4. Eliminate curbside recycling and have no household recycling program in your community. Strongly Oppose 53% Oppose 24% Favor 12% Strongly Favor 11% 5. Eliminate curbside recycling and replace it with a central drop off recycling site located in your community. Strongly Oppose 34% Oppose 28% Favor 25% Strongly Favor 13% 6. Residents pay a tax to the community for weekly curbside recycling. Strongly Oppose 50% Oppose 21% Favor 22% Strongly Favor 7% 7. Residents pay a recycling fee to the waste hauling company for weekly curbside recycling. Strongly Oppose 52% Oppose 21% Favor 20% Strongly Favor 7% Commentary: These results indicate that a very strong majority of residents countywide want to keep the curbside recycling program (Item 4, above). A lesser, but still strong majority of countywide residents, favor keeping the curbside recycling program in place rather than replacing it with a central drop-off program (Item 5, above). The most popular method of financing the program is by way of the general fund (Item 2, above), though most residents do not wish to pay a new tax to support the program (Item 6, above). Generally, residents are reluctant to be billed directly for the cost of the program, especially by the waste collection company (Item 1, above). 4

5 Next, residents were presented with a set of statements and given an opportunity to consider what action would they take if the curbside recycling program were no longer available. They were asked to respond using a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. C. If no curbside recycling program were available to me: 8. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site. Strongly Disagree 25% Disagree 16% Neither Agree nor Disagree 18% Agree 29% Strongly Agree 13% 9. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if it were located 15 minutes or less from my home. Strongly Disagree 24% Disagree 15% Neither Agree nor Disagree 15% Agree 31% Strongly Agree 15% 10. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if they accepted common recyclable items like newspaper, glass, tin cans and plastic. Strongly Disagree 22% Disagree 13% Neither Agree nor Disagree 14% Agree 34% Strongly Agree 17% 11. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if it were open weekdays. Strongly Disagree 25% Disagree 18% Neither Agree nor Disagree 18% Agree 28% Strongly Agree 12% 5

6 12. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if it were open weekends. Strongly Disagree 22% Disagree 13% Neither Agree nor Disagree 18% Agree 30% Strongly Agree 17% 13. I would recycle a lot less solid waste if there were no curbside recycling program in my community. Strongly Disagree 12% Disagree 11% Neither Agree nor Disagree 16% Agree 25% Strongly Agree 37% Commentary: Slightly over 40% of respondents would use a drop-off center (Item 8), but this is less than half the participation rate in the County now, which is 89% (Item 16, below). If a drop-off program were established, residents preferred that it be open on weekends (items 11 and 12, above). Previous results from earlier phone surveys showed that residents prefer the curbside recycling program to a central drop-off program. There is considerable agreement among residents that they would recycle less solid waste if the curbside program were to be discontinued (Item 13, above). D. Next, respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their attitudes toward and their participation in the Lake County curbside recycling program. Here are the results: 14. Knowing that you would have to pay a portion of the cost of curbside recycling if it continues past June 30, 2002, do you want the curbside-recycling program to continue in your community? YES 57% NO 43% 15. Is there a curbside recycling program currently available at your home or residence? YES 96% NO 4% 16. Does your household participate in the curbside recycling program? YES 89% NO 11% 6

7 17. How often do you put material on the curb to be recycled? ALMOST EVERY WEEK 68% EVERY OTHER WEEK 15% ONCE PER MONTH 4% OCCASIONALLY 4% NEVER 10% Commentary: The results from this section of the survey demonstrate the high participation rate and awareness of curbside recycling in Lake County. The participation rate is 89% (Item 16). Over twothirds of respondents indicate that they put material on the curb at least almost every week (Item 17), while another 15% do so every other week. A total of 96% of respondents stated that they had curbside pickup available, indicating an extremely high awareness rate (Item 15). An interesting finding is that a majority (57%) of respondents now state that they would be willing to pay to keep the program (Item 14). Moreover, this result was statistically identical for all four area subgroups of the county (see Appendix A). This is in slight contrast to the results from the first section, where we saw reluctance to pay for the program either through a tax or by paying the waste collection company directly. Note that in comparing area subgroup results to countywide results, there is no statistical difference in results for the above findings. Part III. Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Curbside Recycling A central objective of this study was to find out the extent to which residents of the County would be willing to pay for the curbside recycling program, since the current funding source is scheduled to expire in The average cost per household of operating the program is estimated to be $2.00 per month. In order to measure the response of residents to a proposal concerning payment for the program, two approaches were used, both of which are variations of contingent valuation method (CVM). CVM is a tool that economists have been using for several decades for projects of this type. The sample was divided into two groups and two separate forms of CVM were used to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) for curbside recycling. One thousand persons received surveys using the Payment Card Method, for which various levels of payment were proposed ranging from $1.00 to $3.00 per month in 50-cent increments. A place for zero was also available to the respondents, who were asked to check their maximum WTP for the program. Here are the results: WTP Payment Card Method Amount Cumulative Percent of those Responding Yes $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % 7

8 Commentary: What this means is that, for Lake County as a whole, 34% of respondents were willing to pay the $2.00 per month cost of the program, and a majority, 57%, were willing to pay at least $1.00. The mean household WTP according to the Payment Card Method is $1.08 per month. A second group of 1000 surveys used the Referendum Method. Each respondent in this segment was presented with a dollar amount, again ranging from $1.00 to $3.00 in 50 cent increments, and asked to vote yes or no to curbside recycling. Here are the results: WTP - Referendum Method Amount Percent of those asked responding Yes $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % Commentary: These results show a stronger WTP than under the Payment Card Method, with a majority (52%) willing to support the $2.00 per month estimated to be the per household cost of operating the curbside program. The mean household WTP according to the Referendum Method is $1.72. Note that in comparing area subgroup results to countywide results (see Appendix A), there is no statistical difference in results for the above findings for the Payment Card and Referendum methods of estimating willingness to pay. Part IV. Analysis of Data A primary objective of this study was to identify the characteristics of those who are more (or less) willing to pay for curbside recycling. To do this, a statistical procedure called regression analysis was used to generate an equation to explain or predict why some respondents are willing to pay more than others (in the Payment Card Method) or why some say yes and some say no to funding the program (in the Referendum Method). A. Payment Card Method In the payment card analysis, willingness to pay (WTP) was specified as a function of gender, age, household income, whether the respondent currently participates in the program, and early versus late response to the survey. Below are results of the Payment Card regression analysis: 8

9 Table 1. Statistical Results of Regression on Willingness to Pay For Curbside Recycling Dependent Variable (WTP) Independent Variable Parameter Estimate Significance Participate currently ** Income ** Gender ** Age * Early/Late R 2 =.11 ** denotes statistically significant at the 99% level of confidence * denotes statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence Commentary: The results from this regression analysis can be interpreted in a straightforward manner. Those who currently participate in the program are willing to pay 59 cents more per month, on average, than those who do not. Each $20,000 increase in household income brings about a 21 cent increase in WTP. Women are willing to pay, on average, 38 cents more than men. For every 10 year increase in age, WTP increases 8 cents. There was no statistical difference between early and late responses to the survey, a strong indication that non-response bias is not a problem in the survey. This supports the conclusion that the results of this survey are, in fact, representative of the County s voting population with a margin of error of +/- 4.0 percent. Based on these results, a profile of a Lake County resident who is most willing to pay for the curbside recycling program is: an older woman in a high income bracket who currently participates. Likewise, the profile of a person least willing to pay is: a younger male in a low-income bracket who does not currently participate in the program. B. Referendum Method A second method of eliciting respondents (WTP) is the use of a simple referendum. In this approach, each respondent is presented with an amount ranging from $1.00 to $3.00 in 50 cent increments, and asked whether or not he/she would vote yes for the initiative. For the referendum regression a e was set as the dependent variable, and a binary logistic regression run as a function of the offer amount. The same set of independent variables used in the Payment Card regression were used in the Referendum analysis and included gender, whether the respondent currently participates in curbside recycling, age, household income, and whether the response was early or late. Table 2 shows the results of the Referendum regression analysis. 9

10 Table 2. Statistical Results of Regression on Willingness to Pay For Curbside Recycling Dependent Variable = Yes/No Independent Variable Parameter Estimate Significance Offer Price ** Participate in Curbside ** Income ** Gender Age Early/Late **denotes statistically significant at 99% level Commentary: These results reveal that three factors are statistically related to whether the respondent voted yes or no on the referendum. Persons presented with a costlier payment amount were significantly less likely to vote yes on the measure. This is an expected result, but the magnitude of this association appears relatively high. Current participation is positively associated with willingness to support the referendum, as was income. These results are very similar to those obtained in the payment card portion of the sample. Unlike the payment card example, however, gender and age played no statistical role in the referendum. Early and late response played no role either, as was the case in the Payment Card Method, again indicating that the sample reflects the overall population of the County. One key advantage of the binary logistic procedure on the referendum technique of CVM is that it allows us to predict whether each respondent will vote yes or no on the proposed initiative. The table below compares predicted responses with actual responses: Table 3. Predicted and observed responses to the referendum Predicted No Yes % Correct Observed No % Yes % 10 Overall 63% Of the 245 respondents who voted no, the logistic model predicted that 126 would vote no and 119 would vote yes. This yields a successful prediction rate of 51%. Of the 301 respondents who voted yes, the model predicted that 216 would vote yes and 85 would vote a successful predicted rate of 72%. Thus, the model tells us a great deal more about why respondents would support the measure than why they would oppose the measure.

11 Part V. Summary The results of this survey reveal a number of interesting findings. First, recycling in general, and the curbside program in particular, appear to be very important to the residents of Lake County. A total of 89% of the residents surveyed participate in the program now, and over two-thirds leave material on the curb once a week. Over half of the respondents would rather pay a fee than lose the program. Average household willingness to pay for a program like this is often difficult to estimate precisely. In many cases, people have never thought a great deal about program cost, or they may be reluctant to pay for a service they perceive has having been free to this point. Different methods designed to estimate willingness to pay can often produce different results. This was the situation in this study. When confronted with all possible payment levels on a payment card, the majority of respondents in this survey chose the lowest possible amount above zero, which was $1.00. This percentage (57%) is precisely the same percentage respondents that had stated they would be willing to pay rather than lose the program. It is, therefore, quite likely that the payment card approach understates the willingness to pay for the program. This becomes clearer when we consider the results from the referendum. When confronted with what is currently expected to be the average cost per household of operating the program ($2.00), a majority of respondents (52%) voted yes to the program in that portion of the survey. A total of 79% voted in favor of a $1.00 per month fee. Therefore, it is very likely that the actual percentage of voters who oppose paying for the program is between the 21% from the Referendum Method and the 43% found using the Payment Card Method. These results indicate that, with sufficient leadership and educational outreach, voters in Lake County would support the $2.00 per month fee to allow the present curbside recycling program to continue. The greatest obstacles to be overcome in getting public support are perhaps revealed in comments provided by the nearly 800 responses received from the last portion of the survey, where respondents were given space to provide written comments (see Appendix B for a compilation of these comments, presented by area subgroup). A number of those who opposed the payment of fees or taxes for the program expressed suspicion and concern over where the money goes. Some of these respondents seemed skeptical that the program should cost money, as they perceived that the material being collected and recycled had economic value. Another concern expressed by a number of respondents was whether the material was being recycled at all, or was just being dumped in a landfill. Finally, there was concern about how to prepare the material at the curbside so that it would indeed be collected rather than rejected and left lying in the Given the high public interest in this program and the level of concern demonstrated by residents through the survey, educational efforts to further explain the administrative and operational fine points of the curbside recycling program in Lake County are recommended. Common suspicions and perceptions regarding the curbside recycling program should also be addressed. 11

12 APPENDIX A In this appendix, data are presented for the following four (4) area subgroups and compared with countywide data: 1) Painesville/East (Painesville City, Painesville Township, Fairport Harbor, Grand River, Leroy Township, Madison Village, Madison Township, Perry Village, Perry Township, North Perry Village); 2) Mentor/Central (Mentor, Concord Township, Kirtland, Mentor on-the-lake, Kirtland Hills Village); 3) Mentor City, and 4) West End (Eastlake, Wickliffe, Willoughby, Willoughby Hills, Waite Hill Village, Willowick, Lakeline, Timberlake). The number of respondents and the response rates are listed below for each group. Number of respondents Survey Response Rates County % Painesville/East % Mentor/Central % Mentor City % West End % General Attitudes and Preferences Toward Curbside Recycling in Lake County In the first portion of the survey, respondents were presented with a series of statements and asked to give their opinions on each using a four point scale, ranging from strongly favor to strongly oppose. The results are as follows. A. How should the local share of the residential recycling program be paid for in your community after June 30, 2002? Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 1. The resident should pay directly to the waste collection company for curbside recycling. (Resident pays.) Strongly Oppose 56% 48% 52% 52% 67% Oppose 25% 29% 24% 26% 22% Favor 13% 16% 17% 16% 7% Strongly Favor 6% 7% 7% 7% 4% 12

13 2. The community should pay for curbside recycling using revenues (taxes) from the community s general fund. (Community pays) Strongly Oppose 18% 21% 18% 15% 16% Oppose 15% 17% 16% 13% 12% Favor 36% 39% 33% 35% 38% Strongly Favor 31% 23% 34% 37% 35% 3. A combination of both direct resident payment and community general fund payment should be used to fund the residential recycling program. (Both resident and community share payment.) Strongly Oppose 38% 37% 38% 38% 39% Oppose 20% 20% 18% 20% 21% Favor 27% 27% 28% 25% 25% Strongly Favor 16% 16% 16% 16% 15% B. Recycling Options: 4. Eliminate curbside recycling and have no household recycling program in your community. Strongly Oppose 53% 50% 54% 52% 55% Oppose 24% 29% 20% 22% 25% Favor 12% 11% 13% 15% 12% Strongly Favor 11% 9% 13% 12% 9% 5. Eliminate curbside recycling and replace it with a central drop off recycling site located in your community. Strongly Oppose 34% 28% 38% 40% 36% Oppose 28% 30% 27% 27% 27% Favor 25% 27% 23% 22% 26% Strongly Favor 13% 15% 12% 11% 11% 13

14 6. Residents pay a tax to the community for weekly curbside recycling. Strongly Oppose 50% 52% 50% 52% 50% Oppose 21% 25% 19% 21% 18% Favor 22% 19% 22% 24% 25% Strongly Favor 7% 4% 9% 8% 8% 7. Residents pay a recycling fee to the waste hauling company for weekly curbside recycling. Strongly Oppose 52% 44% 48% 47% 62% Oppose 21% 23% 19% 21% 23% Favor 20% 26% 25% 24% 11% Strongly Favor 7% 8% 8% 8% 5% Next, residents were presented with a set of statements and given an opportunity to consider what action would they take if the curbside recycling program were no longer available. They were asked to respond using a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. C. If no curbside recycling program were available to me: 8. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site. Strongly Disagree 25% 19% 27% 31% 27% Disagree 16% 15% 17% 17% 16% Neither Agree/Disagree 18% 18% 18% 17% 17% Agree 29% 36% 24% 23% 29% Strongly agree 13% 13% 15% 13% 11% 14

15 9. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if it were located 15 minutes or less from my home. Strongly Disagree 24% 19% 26% 29% 26% Disagree 15% 13% 15% 14% 17% Neither Agree/Disagree 15% 14% 16% 15% 14% Agree 31% 36% 28% 28% 30% Strongly agree 15% 17% 15% 13% 13% 10. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if they accepted common recyclable items like newspaper, glass, tin cans, and plastic. Strongly Disagree 22% 17% 24% 27% 24% Disagree 13% 11% 14% 14% 14% Neither Agree/Disagree 14% 14% 14% 14% 15% Agree 34% 38% 31% 30% 34% Strongly agree 17% 20% 18% 15% 13% 11. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if it were open weekdays. Strongly Disagree 25% 19% 27% 31% 26% Disagree 18% 20% 17% 18% 16% Neither Agree/Disagree 18% 20% 16% 14% 20% Agree 28% 29% 27% 26% 27% Strongly agree 12% 13% 12% 10% 11% 12. I would take my household recyclable items to a community drop off site if it were open weekends. Strongly Disagree 22% 19% 24% 28% 23% Disagree 13% 11% 13% 13% 15% Neither Agree/Disagree 18% 17% 16% 16% 20% Agree 30% 35% 28% 26% 29% Strongly agree 17% 19% 19% 17% 14% 15

16 13. I would recycle a lot less solid waste if there were no curbside recycling program in my community. Strongly Disagree 12% 13% 10% 9% 13% Disagree 11% 13% 8% 7% 11% Neither Agree/Disagree 16% 17% 15% 16% 15% Agree 25% 24% 27% 25% 23% Strongly agree 37% 33% 40% 43% 37% D. Next, respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their attitudes toward and their participation in the Lake County curbside recycling program. Here are the results: 14. Knowing that you would have to pay a portion of the cost of curbside recycling if it continues past June 30, 2002; do you want the curbside-recycling program to continue in your community? YES 57% 57% 57% 53% 57% NO 43% 43% 43% 47% 43% 15. Is there a curbside recycling program currently available at your home or residence? YES 96% 97% 96% 97% 96% NO 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 16. Does your household participate in the curbside recycling program? YES 89% 85% 88% 89% 92% NO 11% 15% 12% 11% 8% 16

17 17. How often do you put material on the curb to be recycled? ALMOST EVERY WEEK 68% 61% 71% 74% 70% EVERY OTHER WEEK 15% 16% 13% 13% 16% ONCE PER MONTH 4% 5% 3% 2% 5% OCCASIONALLY 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% NEVER 10% 14% 10% 8% 6% Part III. Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Curbside Recycling WTP Payment Card Method Cumulative Percent of those Responding YES Amount $ % 10% 17% 14% 10% $ % 13% 20% 18% 14% $ % 32% 38% 37% 33% $ % 40% 41% 40% 40% $ % 57% 57% 56% 59% The mean household WTP according to the Payment Card Method is as follows: $1.08 $1.01 $1.15 $1.11 $

18 A second group of 1000 surveys followed the Referendum Method. Here are the results: WTP - Referendum Method % of those asked responding yes for each amount Amount $ % 42% 44% 50% 36% $ % 40% 44% 42% 34% $ % 56% 51% 52% 49% $ % 64% 48% 40% 57% $ % 76% 84% 86% 74% The mean household WTP according to the Referendum Method is as follows: $1.72 $1.76 $1.78 $1.77 $1.63 Demographic Information Asked in the Survey a. Are you employed outside the home? YES 61% 67% 62% 60% 55% NO 39% 33% 38% 40% 45% b. Into which income group would you say your household falls? LESS THAN $20,000 PER YEAR 16% 19% 10% 12% 19% $20,000 TO $39,999 PER YEAR 25% 22% 21% 19% 31% $40,000 TO $59,999 PER YEAR 24% 27% 22% 23% 24% $60,000 TO $79,999 PER YEAR 17% 17% 19% 21% 14% $80,000 OR MORE 19% 15% 28% 26% 12% 18

19 c. Has your household ever participated in recycling household hazardous waste or old paint at special collections? YES 56% 61% 60% 61% 49% NO 38% 35% 35% 35% 43% NOT SURE 6% 5% 6% 4% 8% d. Including yourself, how many persons reside in your household? County Average of 2.7 (+/- 1.2 people) people in my household Painesville/East Average of 2.7 (+/- 1.2 people) people in my household Mentor/Central Average of 2.7 (+/ people) people in my household Mentor City Average of 2.7 (+/ people) people in my household West End Average of 2.5 (+/- 1.2 people) people in my household e. What is your gender? MALE 46% 44% 47% 49% 45% FEMALE 54% 56% 53% 51% 55% f. What is your age? County Painesville/East Mentor/Central Mentor City West End 56 YEARS (+/ years) 55 YEARS (+/ years) 55 YEARS (+/ years) 56 YEARS (+/ years) 58 YEARS (+/ years) g. In what type of dwelling do you live? HOUSE 90% 92% 87% 88% 92% APARTMENT 3% 2% 1% <1% 5% CONDO 6% 5% 11% 11% 3% OTHER 1% 1% 1% <1% 1% 19

20 h. Do you own or rent your house, apartment or condo? OWN 95% 95% 96% 98% 93% RENT 5% 5% 4% 2% 7% i. How do you pay for your garbage collection service? I pay the waste collection 54% 79% 76% 83% 12% company directly for trash collection. The city, township or 34% 6% 8% 3% 83% village pays for trash collection from revenues (taxes) from the community s general fund. Other 12% 15% 16% 13% 6% 20